To link to the entire object, paste this link in email, IM or documentTo embed the entire object, paste this HTML in websiteTo link to this page, paste this link in email, IM or documentTo embed this page, paste this HTML in website

Volume 27, No. 1 1
Economics and Crime: The Effects of the Economy on North Carolina’s Criminal Justice System
North Carolina Criminal Justice Analysis Center Governor’s Crime Commission
Volume 27, No. 1
Economics and Crime: The Effects of the Economy on North Carolina’s
Criminal Justice System
A Division of the North Carolina Department of Crime Control and Public Safety
SystemStats
Executive Summary
The Criminal Justice Analysis Center of the
Governor’s Crime Commission conducted a survey
of law enforcement agencies across North Carolina
to assess how the recent economic downturn has
affected the state’s law enforcement and criminal
justice systems. The survey replicated a portion
of a Police Executive Research Forum survey to
determine how criminal justice agencies across the
state have been impacted in comparison to the rest
of the nation. Survey findings will help enhance
understanding of how and where the state’s criminal
justice agencies are most affected during tough
economic times. Information collected will also
assist agencies to assess the status of their department
compared to similar agencies across the state and will
assist them in implementing recommendations and
strategies adopted by other agencies.
Methodology
Data was collected from a two-part survey
administered by phone to 20 North Carolina police
departments and 20 North Carolina sheriffs’ offices.
In the first section of the survey respondents were
asked to rank their answers in accordance with the
following scale: 1: Strongly Disagree, 2: Somewhat
Disagree, 3: Neutral, 4: Somewhat Agree, 5: Strongly
Agree. This first part consisted of 14 questions for
the police department and the sheriffs’ offices plus
an additional question regarding the county jail. The
second part of the survey consisted of 12 brief open-ended
questions.
Overall, the main areas of interest targeted by the
survey related to agency funding, personnel and
crime in their jurisdiction. Questions in Part 1
inquired about whether the department’s funding
allotment allowed them to achieve their intended
missions and goals. Other questions targeted the
Notable Results From the Survey
• Only three out of 40 (8 percent) sheriff and
police agencies cited they did not need any
increase in officers to have an ideal workforce;
18 percent of the sheriff and police agencies
expect downsizing; and 23 percent have
made significant personnel cuts. In response
to whether budgets increased, decreased, or
remained the same from their prior fiscal year
budget, agencies reported:
• North Carolina:
×× 25 percent - increased budget
ØØ 58 percent - decreased budget
ÙÙ 18 percent - budget remained the same
• Nationwide:
×× 80 percent - increased budget
ØØ 12 percent - decreased budget
ÙÙ 9 percent - budget remained the same
• 73 percent of the agencies in North Carolina are
reducing overtime
• Nationwide 61 percent of agencies are
reducing overtime (PERF, 2009)
• 55 percent of the sheriffs’ offices reported
substantial increases in their jail populations
• 68 percent cited their district as safer, or at least
as safe, as last year
• 70 percent noted a change in the violent crime
rate
• 50 percent of the sheriffs’ offices increased their
use of civilian staff
• Budget cuts are most likely to be directed
towards investigative units
2 SystemStats
Economics and Crime: The Effects of the Economy on North Carolina’s Criminal Justice System
presence and degree of personnel and budget cuts
and inquired about methods used, such as hiring
freezes or the reduction of overtime. The remaining
questions in Part 1 asked about observed changes in
crime rates, safety in the area and changes in the jail
populations.
The second part of the survey consisted of 12 open-ended
questions concerning each department’s
budget, personnel and any noted or anticipated
effects of the current economic downturn. Some
of the budget questions delved into which units
within a department were anticipated to receive the
smallest and largest percent of requested funds. Other
questions asked about changes in the budget over the
years and about what agencies anticipate with this
year’s upcoming budget. Agencies were asked about
any innovative policing strategies they have or would
implement to compensate for an anticipated reduction
in funding and any structural changes within the
department that would be considered if funding is
reduced. Other questions inquired about effects that
could be attributed to a struggling economy such as
changes in the court room, certain types of crime and
how their agency has most been impacted.
For detailed information on the sampling methodology
and a list of agencies that participated in the survey
see Appendices A and B on pages 10 and 11.
Effects of the Economy on Criminal Justice
Agencies and Crime
The following section provides analysis of the data
collected from the survey to better understand how
North Carolina’s struggling economy has affected
criminal justice agencies and the citizens of this
state. The discussion will conclude by presenting an
array of innovative police strategies that departments
currently use or anticipate using to compensate
for times when funding is reduced. Many of the
strategies presented here can be implemented by other
departments looking for ways to help their agency
through this difficult economic period.
Fiscal Impact on the State Budget
The severity of economic problems facing the United
States and North Carolina can hardly be understated.
Law enforcement agencies across North Carolina
are feeling the effects of economic adversity. Survey
respondents provided a wide range of responses
regarding how the state’s current fiscal situation
has most impacted their agency’s mission. Of the
40 responses received, nine (23 percent) noted a
decrease in town revenue, while nine cited trying to
do more with less and six (15 percent) indicated zero
to little changes in their jurisdiction. Furthermore,
five (13 percent) agencies reported difficulty in
acquiring funding, five agencies cited personnel
being affected and six reported other factors.
Included within the ‘Other’ category were two
offices reporting that when prisons close county
agencies are forced to keep prisoners in the jail longer
which results in overcrowding and places a burden
on both the county and the jail staff. One officer
commented, “We are not able to be proactive, only
reactive.” This remark coincides with issues cited
by another officer who stated, “Substance abuse has
really driven the state of things. If the state wants to
make a difference they need to address prescription
fraud.” This example is evidence of how agencies are
unable to be proactive or preventive in their duties;
instead, agencies are only able to react to situations
at hand. Another response was that the agency had
to delay getting new cars, which many departments
feel are necessary in order to maintain ideal operating
standards. On the other hand, one officer stated
the state’s economy has “put more fear into local
government than is reality,” downplaying the severity
of the economic situation and suggesting that the
government is overcompensating due to public
hysteria. The results were evenly distributed across
agency types and agency sizes, which indicates the
impact the declining economy is having on agencies
is not specifically correlated to one particular type or
size of agency.
Volume 27, No. 1 3
Economics and Crime: The Effects of the Economy on North Carolina’s Criminal Justice System
North Carolina’s state budget has been reduced
signigficantly in comparison to previous years.
A significant portion of the financial burden of
supporting local law enforcement agencies has been
shifted away from the state and is now levied on local
government agencies. Local town revenues are being
significantly and adversely affected with people across
the state feeling the impact of the nation’s economic
struggle. Coupling the struggles of towns and cities
across North Carolina with the increased financial
burden they are being asked to take on compounds the
problems and eventually will lead to more cuts and
losses. One officer cited that in his area, “People are
not spending money, the town is not getting money,
and we have not raised taxes, which basically puts
us at a stalemate.” Another officer commented, “Pay
cuts to state employees have impacted spending and
caused less town revenue.” This comment can be
applied to cities and towns across the state. A popular
phrase or one very similar in nature that was echoed
by nearly all agencies was simply, “We are going to
have to do more with less.”
Adequate Funding
The responses of agencies varied greatly in regard
to whether they feel they have adequate funding to
fully carry out their intended missions and goals. Of
the 40 respondents, 40 percent either somewhat or
strongly disagreed that they had adequate funding,
while 38 percent either somewhat or strongly
agreed that funding was sufficient while 23 percent
of the respondents remained neutral. This spread
was fairly consistent regardless of agency type or
size, which suggests that a significant number of
agencies already feel that their current budget is not
sufficient to allow the agency to fully achieve their
goals. With significant budget reductions looming,
more agencies will find themselves not fully able to
afford the services they are accustomed to providing
to the community. In addition, the agencies that were
already unable to achieve their current goals and
missions will be further disadvantaged.
Personnel
In addition to coping with a lack of funding, an
overwhelming majority of agencies expressed the
need for additional personnel. Out of the 40 sheriffs’
and police officers interviewed, only three (8 percent)
reported not needing an increase in officers to have
an ideal workforce. This low response indicates that
many agencies feel understaffed and are in need of
more officers. Ten officers reported needing a 1-10
percent increase in officers, 14 cited an 11-20 percent
needed increase, while seven officers cited a 21-30
percent increase and another six officers stated that
they needed a greater than 30 percent increase in
staffing. For the most part, no overly significant
differences between an agency’s size or agency type
appeared. Generally, larger agencies needed a smaller
percent increase in staffing while smaller agencies
needed a larger increase.
The Job Market for Law Enforcement
With the economic uncertainty, it should be no
surprise that 63 percent of the respondents from
all police and sheriffs’ offices either somewhat or
strongly disagreed that their district is continuing
to improve their job market. While 15 percent
of the respondents elected to remain neutral — a
key indicator the district is holding steady — the
remaining 23 percent agreed to have an improving job
market. As the survey indicates, the job market has
experienced significant declines, which will possibly
lead to more financially motivated crimes. One officer
stated, “You are seeing more new people commit
crimes now-a-days. It is not just repeat offenders and
this is happening nationwide.” (See Figure 1.)
The survey results indicate that 65 percent of the
respondents agreed to having made budget cuts,
including instituting hiring freezes and cutting
Figure 1: Percent Distribution of Responses to the
Question, ‘Is the job market improving
in your district?’ Improved Job Market in District
Neutral: 15%
Disagree 63%
Agree: 22%
4 SystemStats
Economics and Crime: The Effects of the Economy on North Carolina’s Criminal Justice System
overtime pay while only 30 percent of respondents
cited not having to make cuts. The remaining
responses were neutral. Barring the current economic
crisis, these agencies likely would have received
either an increase in funding or at least maintained
the same amount; however, the economic downturn
has caused widespread budget reductions. The most
notable discrepancy regarding agency size and type is
between the police departments and sheriffs’ offices.
Only 10 out of 20 (50 percent) police respondents
agreed to having had to make such cuts, while nine
out of 20 (45 percent) disagreed. On the other hand,
more sheriffs’ offices indicated having had to make
cuts, as seen by 80 percent of the 20 responses stated
they have made cuts, with only 15 percent disagreeing
with the statement.
When the economy slows, it comes as no surprise that
budget cuts will ensue; however, law enforcement is
usually one of the last sectors to be cut. In response
to whether last year’s fiscal year budget decreased,
increased or remained the same from the prior year’s
fiscal budget, 25 percent cited an increase, 58 percent
a decrease and 18 percent reported remaining the
same (Figure 2). Conversely, in a nationwide PERF
study conducted in 2008, 80 percent of respondents
reported last year’s budget increased from the
previous year’s fiscal budget, while 12 percent
decreased and 9 percent remained the same (Fischer,
2009).
Agency size also had an effect on the likelihood
that an agency would experience a large cut. Of the
small agencies interviewed, 50 percent
reported having made significant
budget cuts, where as 65 percent of
medium sized agencies also cited large
budget cuts and 90 percent of large
sized agencies indicated having made
significant budget cuts. This suggests
that as an agency increases in size it
becomes more susceptible to budget
cuts. One chief of police reported, “The
needs of law enforcement continue
to increase, especially during tough
economic times and by decreasing
funding we are not able to be proactive,
only reactive.” Budget cuts hinder the
ability of law enforcement agencies to
continue moving forward and are therefore more
likely to remain stagnant at best. Instead of increasing
funding or at least maintaining funding as many
agencies were accustomed to, budgets are being
reduced which in turn forces departments to cut
services and eventually personnel.
Changes in Agency Size
Of the 40 police and sheriffs’ officers interviewed
29 (73 percent) anticipated that their agency would
remain the same size, seven (18 percent) expected
downsizing, while four (20 percent) anticipated
growth. The survey did not present any discrepancies
between agency sizes; however, police departments
and sheriffs’ offices offered some subtle, yet
noteworthy differences. Of the 20 police departments,
17 (85 percent) expect to remain the same and three
(15 percent) anticipate downsizing. Similarly, of
the 20 sheriffs’ offices, 12 (60 percent) expected
to remain the same, three (15 percent) anticipated
downsizing and four (20 percent) were expected
to grow. Those sheriffs’ offices anticipating growth
attributed it to either maintaining the jail or to an
increase in grant funding. One police chief stated,
“We are going to have to try and do the same job but
with less operating money.” Several sheriffs’ and
police officers echoed this claim; many agencies are
looking to provide the same if not improved services
with fewer funds. Another police chief expressed
his view, “During these tough economic times, if
anything, the demand for law enforcement services
goes up, yet our budgets are being cut and when cuts
are made, the ultimate loser is the citizen.”
25%
80%
58%
12%
18%
9%
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
80
Percent
Increase Decrease Same
Figure 2: Change in Agencies Budgets
North Carolina PERF
Figure 2: Percent Change in Agency Budgets, 2007 to 2008
Volume 27, No. 1 5
Economics and Crime: The Effects of the Economy on North Carolina’s Criminal Justice System
Another area seriously impacted by the economy is
personnel. Of the 40 police departments and sheriffs’
offices interviewed, three (8 percent) somewhat
agreed and six strongly agreed to having made
significant personnel cuts. This is a considerable
portion of agencies claiming to have made staffing
cuts since law enforcement personnel are rarely cut.
These personnel cuts indicate the infiltration of the
current economic downturn into North Carolina’s
law enforcement units. A closer examination of
survey results reveal that only one out of 10 (10
percent) respondents from small sized agencies
either somewhat or strongly agreed to having made
significant personnel cuts, while seven respondents
had not made personnel cuts.
This data could be explained because a loss of one
individual on a smaller sized staff would have a
greater impact than the loss of a few officers on a
large staff. One police officer stated, “Unfortunately,
we had to let one of our officers go this past year
and that lone loss has really stretched our duties
and has been very demanding for us here, because
being such a small agency, he was a large portion
of our manpower.” Generally, however, it appears
that smaller sized agencies are the least likely to cut
personnel, but when they have to do so, it is a much
more significant loss to absorb. Overall, it appears
agencies are doing their best to hold all their current
positions. Although, one officer stated, “If things keep
getting worse with the economy, we will probably be
forced to begin letting some personnel go.”
Overtime Spending Reduced
With the significant budget cuts overtime spending
is beginning to be cut back. The results provided
conclusive evidence that overtime is being reduced;
73 percent of the respondents either somewhat or
strongly agreed to have seen such reductions. Of the
remaining respondents, 18 percent were neutral and
10 percent either somewhat disagreed or strongly
disagreed that their respective agencies have reduced
overtime. These figures suggest that overtime
spending has continued to be reduced, as indicated
in an earlier nationwide PERF study in 2008. That
survey found that 61 percent of the surveyed agencies
were cutting back on overtime (Fischer, 2009). These
figures imply that overall North Carolina agencies
have had to decrease overtime spending at a slightly
higher rate than the national average (Figure 3).
Survey results also indicate that sheriffs’ offices
have reduced overtime slightly more than police
departments. Eighty percent of the sheriffs’ offices
responding agreed that a reduction is occurring, while
only 5 percent disagreed. The rest of the sample
was neutral on the issue. On the other hand, 65
percent of police respondents agreed that overtime
was being reduced while 15 percent disagreed with
the statement. These results suggest that a significant
number of agencies, regardless of type, have had to
reduce overtime spending.
Small sized police departments appear to be the
least susceptible to overtime reductions. Of the
five respondents within this group, three answered
neutral and two respondents agreed to having
reduced overtime which suggests that smaller
police departments most likely do not take on that
much overtime to begin with, since several of these
respondents also indicated they try not to use overtime
at all. In the sample of the large sized agencies, eight
out of nine (89 percent) respondents strongly agreed
to having to reduce overtime while one (11 percent)
respondent somewhat disagreed.
Jail Populations
Jails have also been significantly impacted by the
struggling economy. Of the 20 sheriffs’ offices
interviewed, 11 (55 percent) either somewhat or
73%
61%
28%
39%
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
80
Percent
Decrease, Same, Neutral Increase
Figure 3: Changes in Overtime Spending
North Carolina Nationwide
Figure 3: Percent Change in Overtime Spending,
2007 to 2008
6 SystemStats
Economics and Crime: The Effects of the Economy on North Carolina’s Criminal Justice System
strongly agreed to have observed what they consider
a substantial increase in the jail population, while
five (25 percent) remained neutral and four (20
percent) respondents somewhat disagreed that they
had seen an increase in the jail population. Of the
five small sized sheriffs’ offices four (80 percent) of
them strongly agreed and one (20 percent) somewhat
agreed to having seen a substantial increase in the
jail population.
Courtroom Efficiency
Courts are another sector that has been impacted by
the economy. Although the responses given were
not entirely consistent, there were numerous officers
citing various problems. The survey yielded mixed
results about whether courtrooms have regressed in
their efficiency due to the economic slowdown. Some
agencies noted fairly significant inefficiencies, as
indicated by 25 percent of the respondents strongly
disagreeing that their courtroom had not seen any
setbacks, while 15 percent somewhat disagreed.
Some officers went as far as to question whether
their courtrooms could get any worse. On the other
hand, other respondents did not feel their courtrooms
had become less efficient. In fact, 38 percent of
respondents either somewhat or strongly agreed
that their courtroom had not suffered in terms of
efficiency.
Responses varied greatly when asked about the main
effects the economy has had in the courtroom. Of
the 40 respondents, 12 (30 percent) of the officers
cited that the economy had not impacted their court
systems, 13 (33 percent) reported case overload, eight
(20 percent) noticed increases in property crimes and
three (8 percent) claimed judges were more lenient
and less likely to charge or sentence offenders. (See
Figure 4.)
Perceived District Safety
Safety in most districts has remained consistent for
the most part. Survey results indicate that 68 percent
of the sheriff and police respondents either somewhat
agreed or strongly agreed that their district is at least
as safe as or safer than it was a year ago.
Violent Crime Rate
The results about whether an agency’s district had
the same violent crime rate over the past year were
evenly split. Forty percent either somewhat or
strongly disagreed while 53 percent somewhat or
strongly agreed that there had been no change in the
violent crime rate. This data was consistently upheld
regardless of agency size or type. The reason for this
discrepancy may be that the violent crime rate does
not follow a trend and is not indicative of a rise or fall
in the economy. The findings here support the claims
set forth by Levitt and Dubner in Freakonomics
(2006). In their book they cited that during the
1990s unemployment fell by two percentage points,
but violent crime plummeted about 40 percent. In
comparison, in the 1960s, the economy boomed and
so did violent crime. The survey results support the
findings of Levitt and Dubner (2006) suggesting
Court Room Effects
Sheriffs’ Offices
Percent of Times Cited
Police Departments
Percent of Times Cited
Backlog 50 15
Increase Property Crime 20 20
Less likely to sentence 0 15
None 15 45
Figure 4: Effects of the Economy on the Court System
Volume 27, No. 1 7
Economics and Crime: The Effects of the Economy on North Carolina’s Criminal Justice System
that the violent crime rate does not
depend on or vary with changes in
the economy.
Non-violent Crime Rate
The combined survey results for
the police departments and sheriffs’
offices indicate a wide range of
responses across all five possible
answer choices; however, there were
significant differences by agency
type and agency size. Respondents
from the sheriffs’ offices significantly
disagreed that their non-violent crime
rate had remained the same. Seventy
percent of the respondents either
somewhat or strongly disagreed
and only 10 percent of respondents
somewhat agreed and the rest
remained neutral. The opposite is true
for police departments. They agreed
significantly in noting a change in the non-violent
crime rate. Survey results indicate that 65 percent
of police departments responding either somewhat
or strongly agreed that non-violent crime rates
had changed in their jurisdiction, while 30 percent
disagreed and one (5 percent) respondent remained
neutral about any change. In regards to agency size,
the smaller agencies were the subgroup that most
disagreed with not seeing a change in the non-violent
crime rate. Seventy percent of their respondents
disagreed while the rest somewhat agreed, indicating
they had not seen a change in the non-violent crime
rate. These figures are supported by a 100 percent
disagreement by small sized sheriffs’ offices. All of
the officers reporting indicated that the non-violent
crime rate had increased in their jurisdiction.
Civilian Staff
In order to help compensate for a reduction in funding,
one method some agencies have implemented is
increased reliance on less costly civilian staff. At
initial glance, there does not appear to be an overall
trend that would determine if agencies are making
use of hiring less costly civilian staff to help their
budget. Overall, 21 (53 percent) of the agencies
stated they have not increased the use of civilian staff,
while six (15 percent) respondents were neutral and
13 (33 percent) agencies claimed to have increased
their civilian staff. However, 75 percent of the police
department’s have not increased civilian staff, while
15 percent did increase and the remaining 10 percent
were neutral. Fifty percent of the sheriffs’ offices
responding stated they have increased the use of
civilians, 30 percent did not and 20 percent were
neutral. (See Figure 5.)
In addition to examining how the economy has
affected criminal justice departments and what effects
have arisen due to those changes, the study also
inquired about what to typically expect during these
economic downturns and more specifically, what
effects North Carolina’s citizens will experience.
Economically Driven Crimes
Respondents were asked about the following
offenses: burglary, theft, robbery, crimes involving
scrap and/or precious metals, drug-related crimes,
gasoline theft, crimes involving firearms, property
crimes, thefts involving cars, larceny and all other
crimes. The following results are demonstrative in
explaining what types of crimes can be expected
when economic conditions deteriorate. Respondents
cited that burglary (88 percent), theft (93 percent)
and larceny (90 percent) were driven by difficult
economic conditions. Robbery was also indicated
by 80 percent of respondents as associated with
declining economic conditions. These results suggest
Figure 5: Percent Change in the Use of Civilian Staff by Agencies,
2007 to 2008
15%
50%
85%
50%
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
80
90
Percent
Increase Decrease /Neutral/Same
Police Departments Sheriff's Officers
8 SystemStats
Economics and Crime: The Effects of the Economy on North Carolina’s Criminal Justice System
that many people are driven into methods of theft
to compensate for their economic shortfalls. This
echoes Becker’s (1968) work which suggests that,
as the economy spirals downward, individuals are
more likely to commit income producing criminal
violations as the benefits of perpetration outweigh or
surpass the associated costs of apprehension.
Gasoline theft and property crimes in general were
each cited by 30 out of 40 (75 percent) respondents
as being driven by tough economic times. One
officer commented on the issue of gasoline theft,
“Gasoline theft usually flares up when people really
start getting hit hard in their pockets and many people
that normally would otherwise pay for their gas are
finding ways to cut corners and save money wherever
possible”.
Drug related crimes, car theft and crimes with firearms
were the crimes sheriffs’ offices and police officers
least attributed to be driven by difficult economic
times. Of the 40 responding agencies, 23 (58 percent)
cited drug related crimes to be economically related,
while 10 (25 percent) agencies disagreed and seven
(18 percent) claimed a possible relation. The survey
yielded 48 percent of respondents citing a relation for
car theft, while 25 percent disagreed and 28 percent
claimed there to be a possible relationship. Crimes
with firearms were least attributed to being driven
by a declining economy, as only 40 percent of the
agencies agreed there to be a correlation, 28 percent
disagreed and 33 percent cited a possible relation.
Additionally, crimes involving scrap and/or precious
metals were cited by 73 percent of the 40 respondents
as being driven by tough economic conditions, while
20 percent disagreed with this claim and 8 percent of
the respondents were neutral.
Respondents were asked if there were any other
crimes they considered to be driven by difficult
economic conditions that had been observed in their
jurisdiction. The results were fairly split. Twenty-one
(53 percent) respondents noted that some factors were
influenced by the economy, while 19 (48 percent)
respondents did not cite observing any such instances.
The breakdown of the 21 respondents consisted of
10 (48 percent) instances of fraud, nine (43 percent)
noting an increase in domestic violence, and two (10
percent) observed other factors, including an increase
in shoplifting and an increase in murders.
Budgetary Allocations by Unit
The previous section detailed the types of crimes
sheriffs’ and police officers typically associate
with difficult economic conditions. The following
analysis details what specific units within a sheriffs’
office or police department are least and most likely
Figure 6: Agency Units Expected to Receive the Smallest Percent of Funding, 2007 to 2008
11
9
7
5
4
3
1 0
2
4
6
8
10
12
Number of Times Cited
Investigation Equal
Disbursement
Reduction
Patrol Equipment/
Supplies
Personnel Other Jail
Agency Unit
Figure 12: Agency Unit Expected to Receive Smallest Percent of Requested Funds
Volume 27, No. 1 9
Economics and Crime: The Effects of the Economy on North Carolina’s Criminal Justice System
to receive cuts. Overall, between the sheriffs’
offices and police departments the units that should
expect to receive the smallest portion of requested
funds are the investigative units, which tallied 11
out of the 40 (28 percent) responses, and the next
would be 23 percent citing an equal disbursement
reduction, which implies that all units take on the
same percentage cut. The remaining responses were
distributed as follows: seven (18 percent) for patrol,
five (13 percent) for equipment and supplies, four
(10 percent) towards administrative positions and
three (8 percent) for other and one (3 percent) for jail.
Responses included in the other category included the
civil division, traffic division and the department’s
travel budget (Figure 6).
Anticipated cuts did not vary by agency size, but
there were some notable trends between the police
departments and sheriffs’ offices. For example,
of the responding police departments, seven (35
percent) indicated investigations as likely to receive
the smallest percent of requested funds and six (30
percent) cited equal disbursement reduction. No other
category was chosen more than three times as being
likely to receive the smallest percent of requested
funds. On the other hand, the sheriffs’ offices results
for which units would receive the smallest percent
of requested funds were more dispersed, with patrol
and investigation each chosen four times (20 percent
for each). Personnel, equal disbursement reduction,
and other were each chosen three times (15 percent
for each), equipment and supplies were chosen twice
(10 percent) and jail once (5 percent). From these
responses it can be inferred that the investigative
departments will likely absorb a significant impact
of the expected budget cut.
The following sections will discuss structural changes
and innovative policing strategies that are being
used or agencies anticipate using to compensate for
funding reductions.
Infrastructure Changes
In response to what structural changes agencies
are considering or implementing, 21 out of 40 (53
percent) reported no changes at the current time, while
10 out of 40 (25 percent) reported reorganization of
positions. This often entailed methods like shifting
duties around or eliminating high ranking positions
to ‘flatten out’ the department. The remaining
responses included four (10 percent) implementing
changes in personnel and salaries, two (5 percent)
for reducing programs, and one (3 percent) for each
of the following: equipment cuts, training reduction
and other. Changes with personnel and salaries can
encompass a variety of methods including pay cuts,
eliminating school resource officers or freezing
positions. The response given for the ‘Other’
category described an increase in telephone reporting,
which allows an agency to save both time and fuel,
potentially at the expense of losing some legitimacy
with citizens reporting crimes because they may
not feel their issue is being taken as seriously. (See
Figure 7 above.)
The results of the survey indicate that police
departments are more likely to not institute any
structural changes and less likely to reorganize
positions. Of the 20 police respondents surveyed 65
percent cited no changes, 15 percent reported position
reorganization, 10 percent indicated personnel and
salary changes and 5 percent for program reductions.
Structural Change
Number of Times
Cited
None 21
Position Reorganization 10
Personnel/Salaries 4
Program Reductions 2
Equipment Cuts 1
Training Reduction 1
Other 1
Figure 7: Agencies Expected to Make Structural
Changes, 2007 to 2008
10 SystemStats
Economics and Crime: The Effects of the Economy on North Carolina’s Criminal Justice System
The remaining 5 percent indicated other changes
would be made without specifying what those
changes would be. On the other hand, eight out of 20
(40 percent) sheriffs’ offices cited no changes, while
seven (35 percent) indicated position reorganization.
The remaining two (5 percent) sheriffs’ offices cited
personnel and salaries. This data suggest that sheriffs’
offices are more likely to reorganize positions within
their department and police departments are less
likely to have not made any sort of structural change.
However, one officer reported, “If the economy
continues to go the way it is going, we will surely
have to look at making some changes around here.”
The high percentage of officers reporting no changes
at the time of the survey suggests that departments
have an established infrastructure and major changes
in an agency’s operations would likely be unfeasible
and possibly counterproductive. As a result, many
agencies simply try to do more with less.
Policing Strategies
The survey results obtained regarding what, if any,
innovative policing strategies agencies have taken on
are very consistent in proportion regardless of agency
size or type. Of the 40 respondents interviewed,
14 (35 percent) reported not currently using or not
yet having anticipated using any innovative police
strategies to cope with the probable reduction in
funding. Of those 14, there were seven police and
seven sheriffs’ offices each citing no changes as of
yet.
Other innovative policing strategies noted from
police departments and sheriffs’ offices included five
(13 percent) citing more efforts towards obtaining
grants and funding, five reporting technology uses,
and five claiming using atypical patrol methods.
Furthermore, four (10 percent) respondents cited
relying more heavily on community help and
involvement, while seven (18 percent) officers cited
other innovative strategies. These other strategies
included more in service training; Values, Influence
and Peers programs; eliminating work duplication,
instituting civil citation programs and hiring part-time
help. Other atypical patrol strategies included
methods such as policing on foot or bicycle or by
doubling the number of officers per car. An officer of
an agency utilizing technology stated, “Since we are
stretched so thin as a workforce, we have implanted
cameras in high crime areas to better monitor those
areas.” Overall, when the budget begins to tighten
agencies look at different ways to save or generate
money or seek alternative methods to help make
their services more efficient by, essentially, doing
more with less.
Summary
The enduring effects of the economic downturn will
impact law enforcement agencies statewide. The
survey shows sheriffs’ offices and police departments
are experiencing the effects of the recession through
both crimes committed and budgetary restraints.
The constant theme stated by the agencies surveyed
remains how to do more with less as these agencies
grapple with maintaining a level of service to the
public with a concurrent decreased level of funding.
As reported earlier by one police chief, “. . . the
demand for law enforcement services goes up, yet
our budgets are being cut and when cuts are made,
the ultimate loser is the citizen.”
Appendix A: Sampling Method
A stratified sampling method derived from agency
size was used to select both the sheriffs’ offices and
the police departments to be surveyed. Campus,
company and other special police forces were
excluded from the survey. All remaining agencies
were segmented into three groups: an upper quartile,
a middle 50 percent and a lower quartile. The top
25 percent group was defined as large agencies, the
middle 50 percent as medium sized, and the smallest
25 percent was categorized as small agencies.
There are 100 counties in North Carolina; therefore,
the top quartile consisted of 25 sheriffs’ offices, the
middle segment included 50 counties and the lower
quartile contained 25 agencies to randomly choose
Volume 27, No. 1 11
Economics and Crime: The Effects of the Economy on North Carolina’s Criminal Justice System
SYSTEM STAT S
A Publication of the
Governor’s Crime Commission
Department of Crime Control and Public Safety
(919) 733-4564
http://www.ncgccd.org
Beverly Eaves Perdue Reuben F. Young Scott Thomas
Governor Secretary Chair, Governor’s Crime Commission
Gwendolyn W. Burrell Douglas Yearwood
Executive Director Director, Statistical Analysis Center
Dr. Jim Klopovic Richard Hayes Justin Davis
Criminal Justice Planner Senior Research Analyst Social/Clinical Research Specialist
Karen Jayson Yu Li Hsu Gerald Koinis
Social/Clinical Research Specialist Research Assistant Intern
University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill
References
Becker, G. (1968). Crime and punishment: An economic approach. Journal of Political Economy, 76 (2), p. 169-
217.
Fischer, C. (2009). [Survey on the impact of the economic recession on crime and on police budgets]. Unpublished
raw data.
Levitt, S. D., & Dubner, S. J. (2006). Freakonomics. New York, NY: HarperCollins Publishers.
Police Executive Research Forum. (2009). Retrieved July 10, 2009, from Police Executive Research Forum, Washington,
DC. Web site: http://www.policeforum.org/.
from. The sheriffs’ offices’ large group was defined
as agencies with 77 or more total sworn officers,
the middle group has agencies ranging from 76 to
24 sworn officers and the lower quartile contained
agencies with 23 or fewer officers. There are 90
total police departments in the top quartile, 180 in
the middle 50 percent, and 90 agencies in the lowest
quartile. The top quartile of agencies was defined as
those with greater than 20 sworn officers, the middle
50 percent consisted of four to 20 sworn officers and
the lowest quartile group contained mainly agencies
with one to four sworn officers.
Five agencies from the top quartile, 10 from the
middle 50 percent, and five agencies from the lower
quartile were selected to be interviewed for both
sheriffs’ and police agencies. Thus the combined total
number for both agency types was 10 small agencies,
20 medium and 10 large agencies. This distribution
allows for a proportionate representation based on
agency size. The agencies selected for inclusion in
the study were chosen randomly.
Appendix B: Participating Agencies
Sheriffs’ Offices Police Departments
Alamance County Ayden
Alexander County Boone
Ashe County Chapel Hill
Avery County Concord
Brunswick County Fremont
Buncombe County Kings Mountain
Cherokee County Marion
Forsyth County Nags Head
Gaston County Newland
Granville County Oriental
Haywood County Pine Level
Mecklenburg County Pinehurst
Montgomery County Plymouth
Person County Rose Hill
Polk County Rowland
Richmond County Siler City
Rutherford County Tabor City
Sampson County Wallace
Stokes County Weldon
Surry County Zebulon
North Carolina Governor’s Crime Commission
1201 Front Street, Suite 200
Raleigh, North Carolina 27609
The printing of this document was supported under grant number 2005-DJ-BX-0402, as awarded by the Bureau of Justice Assistance, Office of Justice Programs, U.S. Department
of Justice. The opinions and findings presented in this publication are those of the author and do not necessarily reflect the views of the U. S. Department of Justice. This document
was printed at a cost of $ 1,534.30 or $ 1.02 per copy for 1,500 copies. January 2010
The Governor’s Crime Commission was established in 1977 by the North Carolina General Assembly under G.S. 143B-479. Its primary duty is “to be the chief advisory body to the Governor and the Secretary
of the Department of Crime Control and Public Safety for the development and implementation of criminal justice policy.” The Crime Commission is always open to comments and suggestions from the public
as well as criminal justice officials. Please contact us and let us know your thoughts and feelings on the information contained in this publication or on any other criminal justice issue of concern to you.
Beverly Eaves Perdue
Governor
Scott E. Thomas, Chair
Governor’s Crime Commission
Secretary Reuben F. Young
Department of Crime Control & Public Safety
Dr. June Atkinson, Superintendent
Department of Public Instruction
Robin Baker
N.C. Victim Assistance Network
Judge Joseph M. Buckner
Chief District Court Judge
Sheriff Steve W. Bunn
Bladen County Sheriff’s Office
Secretary Lanier M. Cansler
Dept. of Health & Human Services
Steven Cogburn
Clerk of Superior Court, Buncombe County
Judge J. C. Cole
Superior Court Judge
Attorney General Roy Cooper
Department of Justice
Chief Harry Dolan
Raleigh Police Department
Mayor James K. Festerman
City of Reidsville
Judge Carl Fox
Superior Court Judge
Dr. Catherine Mitchell-Fuentes
UNC Charlotte
Representative R. Phillip Haire
N.C. House of Representatives
Secretary Linda Wheeler Hayes
Dept. of Juvenile Justice & Delinquency Prevention
Jean R. Irvin
Private Juvenile Justice Program
Dr. Robin Jenkins, Deputy Secretary
Dept. of Juvenile Justice & Delinquency Prevention
David E. Jones, Deputy Secretary
Dept. of Juvenile Justice & Delinquency Prevention
Senator Edward “Ed” Jones
North Carolina State Senate
Secretary Alvin W. Keller, Jr.
Department of Correction
Sheriff James L. Knight
Edgecombe County Sheriff’s Office
Robert Lewis, Director
Division of Prisons, DOC
Rita Anita Linger
NC Coalition Against Domestic Violence
Jerry G. Monette
Craven County Sheriff’s Office
Chief Rodney Monroe
Charlotte-Mecklenburg Police Department
Timothy Moose, Director
Division of Community Corrections, DOC
Michael Page, Chair
Durham County Board of Commissioners
Chief Justice Sarah E. Parker
North Carolina Supreme Court
Robin Pendergraft, Director
State Bureau of Investigation
James W. Pierce, Jr.
Kids Making It
Sandra Lynn Reid
Elon University
Jennifer Roberts, Chair
Mecklenburg County Board of Commissioners
Sharon Sadler
Hyde County Clerk of Superior Court
Captain J. Wayne Sears
Rocky Mount Police Department
Richard L. Shaffer
27B Prosecutorial District
Detective Crystal Lynn Sharpe
Graham Police Department
Judge John W. Smith, Director
Administrative Office of the Courts
Senator John J. Snow
North Carolina State Senate
Kerstin Walker Sutton
Attorney Representative Michael H. Wray
N.C. House of Representatives
Commission Members as of January 2009

Volume 27, No. 1 1
Economics and Crime: The Effects of the Economy on North Carolina’s Criminal Justice System
North Carolina Criminal Justice Analysis Center Governor’s Crime Commission
Volume 27, No. 1
Economics and Crime: The Effects of the Economy on North Carolina’s
Criminal Justice System
A Division of the North Carolina Department of Crime Control and Public Safety
SystemStats
Executive Summary
The Criminal Justice Analysis Center of the
Governor’s Crime Commission conducted a survey
of law enforcement agencies across North Carolina
to assess how the recent economic downturn has
affected the state’s law enforcement and criminal
justice systems. The survey replicated a portion
of a Police Executive Research Forum survey to
determine how criminal justice agencies across the
state have been impacted in comparison to the rest
of the nation. Survey findings will help enhance
understanding of how and where the state’s criminal
justice agencies are most affected during tough
economic times. Information collected will also
assist agencies to assess the status of their department
compared to similar agencies across the state and will
assist them in implementing recommendations and
strategies adopted by other agencies.
Methodology
Data was collected from a two-part survey
administered by phone to 20 North Carolina police
departments and 20 North Carolina sheriffs’ offices.
In the first section of the survey respondents were
asked to rank their answers in accordance with the
following scale: 1: Strongly Disagree, 2: Somewhat
Disagree, 3: Neutral, 4: Somewhat Agree, 5: Strongly
Agree. This first part consisted of 14 questions for
the police department and the sheriffs’ offices plus
an additional question regarding the county jail. The
second part of the survey consisted of 12 brief open-ended
questions.
Overall, the main areas of interest targeted by the
survey related to agency funding, personnel and
crime in their jurisdiction. Questions in Part 1
inquired about whether the department’s funding
allotment allowed them to achieve their intended
missions and goals. Other questions targeted the
Notable Results From the Survey
• Only three out of 40 (8 percent) sheriff and
police agencies cited they did not need any
increase in officers to have an ideal workforce;
18 percent of the sheriff and police agencies
expect downsizing; and 23 percent have
made significant personnel cuts. In response
to whether budgets increased, decreased, or
remained the same from their prior fiscal year
budget, agencies reported:
• North Carolina:
×× 25 percent - increased budget
ØØ 58 percent - decreased budget
ÙÙ 18 percent - budget remained the same
• Nationwide:
×× 80 percent - increased budget
ØØ 12 percent - decreased budget
ÙÙ 9 percent - budget remained the same
• 73 percent of the agencies in North Carolina are
reducing overtime
• Nationwide 61 percent of agencies are
reducing overtime (PERF, 2009)
• 55 percent of the sheriffs’ offices reported
substantial increases in their jail populations
• 68 percent cited their district as safer, or at least
as safe, as last year
• 70 percent noted a change in the violent crime
rate
• 50 percent of the sheriffs’ offices increased their
use of civilian staff
• Budget cuts are most likely to be directed
towards investigative units
2 SystemStats
Economics and Crime: The Effects of the Economy on North Carolina’s Criminal Justice System
presence and degree of personnel and budget cuts
and inquired about methods used, such as hiring
freezes or the reduction of overtime. The remaining
questions in Part 1 asked about observed changes in
crime rates, safety in the area and changes in the jail
populations.
The second part of the survey consisted of 12 open-ended
questions concerning each department’s
budget, personnel and any noted or anticipated
effects of the current economic downturn. Some
of the budget questions delved into which units
within a department were anticipated to receive the
smallest and largest percent of requested funds. Other
questions asked about changes in the budget over the
years and about what agencies anticipate with this
year’s upcoming budget. Agencies were asked about
any innovative policing strategies they have or would
implement to compensate for an anticipated reduction
in funding and any structural changes within the
department that would be considered if funding is
reduced. Other questions inquired about effects that
could be attributed to a struggling economy such as
changes in the court room, certain types of crime and
how their agency has most been impacted.
For detailed information on the sampling methodology
and a list of agencies that participated in the survey
see Appendices A and B on pages 10 and 11.
Effects of the Economy on Criminal Justice
Agencies and Crime
The following section provides analysis of the data
collected from the survey to better understand how
North Carolina’s struggling economy has affected
criminal justice agencies and the citizens of this
state. The discussion will conclude by presenting an
array of innovative police strategies that departments
currently use or anticipate using to compensate
for times when funding is reduced. Many of the
strategies presented here can be implemented by other
departments looking for ways to help their agency
through this difficult economic period.
Fiscal Impact on the State Budget
The severity of economic problems facing the United
States and North Carolina can hardly be understated.
Law enforcement agencies across North Carolina
are feeling the effects of economic adversity. Survey
respondents provided a wide range of responses
regarding how the state’s current fiscal situation
has most impacted their agency’s mission. Of the
40 responses received, nine (23 percent) noted a
decrease in town revenue, while nine cited trying to
do more with less and six (15 percent) indicated zero
to little changes in their jurisdiction. Furthermore,
five (13 percent) agencies reported difficulty in
acquiring funding, five agencies cited personnel
being affected and six reported other factors.
Included within the ‘Other’ category were two
offices reporting that when prisons close county
agencies are forced to keep prisoners in the jail longer
which results in overcrowding and places a burden
on both the county and the jail staff. One officer
commented, “We are not able to be proactive, only
reactive.” This remark coincides with issues cited
by another officer who stated, “Substance abuse has
really driven the state of things. If the state wants to
make a difference they need to address prescription
fraud.” This example is evidence of how agencies are
unable to be proactive or preventive in their duties;
instead, agencies are only able to react to situations
at hand. Another response was that the agency had
to delay getting new cars, which many departments
feel are necessary in order to maintain ideal operating
standards. On the other hand, one officer stated
the state’s economy has “put more fear into local
government than is reality,” downplaying the severity
of the economic situation and suggesting that the
government is overcompensating due to public
hysteria. The results were evenly distributed across
agency types and agency sizes, which indicates the
impact the declining economy is having on agencies
is not specifically correlated to one particular type or
size of agency.
Volume 27, No. 1 3
Economics and Crime: The Effects of the Economy on North Carolina’s Criminal Justice System
North Carolina’s state budget has been reduced
signigficantly in comparison to previous years.
A significant portion of the financial burden of
supporting local law enforcement agencies has been
shifted away from the state and is now levied on local
government agencies. Local town revenues are being
significantly and adversely affected with people across
the state feeling the impact of the nation’s economic
struggle. Coupling the struggles of towns and cities
across North Carolina with the increased financial
burden they are being asked to take on compounds the
problems and eventually will lead to more cuts and
losses. One officer cited that in his area, “People are
not spending money, the town is not getting money,
and we have not raised taxes, which basically puts
us at a stalemate.” Another officer commented, “Pay
cuts to state employees have impacted spending and
caused less town revenue.” This comment can be
applied to cities and towns across the state. A popular
phrase or one very similar in nature that was echoed
by nearly all agencies was simply, “We are going to
have to do more with less.”
Adequate Funding
The responses of agencies varied greatly in regard
to whether they feel they have adequate funding to
fully carry out their intended missions and goals. Of
the 40 respondents, 40 percent either somewhat or
strongly disagreed that they had adequate funding,
while 38 percent either somewhat or strongly
agreed that funding was sufficient while 23 percent
of the respondents remained neutral. This spread
was fairly consistent regardless of agency type or
size, which suggests that a significant number of
agencies already feel that their current budget is not
sufficient to allow the agency to fully achieve their
goals. With significant budget reductions looming,
more agencies will find themselves not fully able to
afford the services they are accustomed to providing
to the community. In addition, the agencies that were
already unable to achieve their current goals and
missions will be further disadvantaged.
Personnel
In addition to coping with a lack of funding, an
overwhelming majority of agencies expressed the
need for additional personnel. Out of the 40 sheriffs’
and police officers interviewed, only three (8 percent)
reported not needing an increase in officers to have
an ideal workforce. This low response indicates that
many agencies feel understaffed and are in need of
more officers. Ten officers reported needing a 1-10
percent increase in officers, 14 cited an 11-20 percent
needed increase, while seven officers cited a 21-30
percent increase and another six officers stated that
they needed a greater than 30 percent increase in
staffing. For the most part, no overly significant
differences between an agency’s size or agency type
appeared. Generally, larger agencies needed a smaller
percent increase in staffing while smaller agencies
needed a larger increase.
The Job Market for Law Enforcement
With the economic uncertainty, it should be no
surprise that 63 percent of the respondents from
all police and sheriffs’ offices either somewhat or
strongly disagreed that their district is continuing
to improve their job market. While 15 percent
of the respondents elected to remain neutral — a
key indicator the district is holding steady — the
remaining 23 percent agreed to have an improving job
market. As the survey indicates, the job market has
experienced significant declines, which will possibly
lead to more financially motivated crimes. One officer
stated, “You are seeing more new people commit
crimes now-a-days. It is not just repeat offenders and
this is happening nationwide.” (See Figure 1.)
The survey results indicate that 65 percent of the
respondents agreed to having made budget cuts,
including instituting hiring freezes and cutting
Figure 1: Percent Distribution of Responses to the
Question, ‘Is the job market improving
in your district?’ Improved Job Market in District
Neutral: 15%
Disagree 63%
Agree: 22%
4 SystemStats
Economics and Crime: The Effects of the Economy on North Carolina’s Criminal Justice System
overtime pay while only 30 percent of respondents
cited not having to make cuts. The remaining
responses were neutral. Barring the current economic
crisis, these agencies likely would have received
either an increase in funding or at least maintained
the same amount; however, the economic downturn
has caused widespread budget reductions. The most
notable discrepancy regarding agency size and type is
between the police departments and sheriffs’ offices.
Only 10 out of 20 (50 percent) police respondents
agreed to having had to make such cuts, while nine
out of 20 (45 percent) disagreed. On the other hand,
more sheriffs’ offices indicated having had to make
cuts, as seen by 80 percent of the 20 responses stated
they have made cuts, with only 15 percent disagreeing
with the statement.
When the economy slows, it comes as no surprise that
budget cuts will ensue; however, law enforcement is
usually one of the last sectors to be cut. In response
to whether last year’s fiscal year budget decreased,
increased or remained the same from the prior year’s
fiscal budget, 25 percent cited an increase, 58 percent
a decrease and 18 percent reported remaining the
same (Figure 2). Conversely, in a nationwide PERF
study conducted in 2008, 80 percent of respondents
reported last year’s budget increased from the
previous year’s fiscal budget, while 12 percent
decreased and 9 percent remained the same (Fischer,
2009).
Agency size also had an effect on the likelihood
that an agency would experience a large cut. Of the
small agencies interviewed, 50 percent
reported having made significant
budget cuts, where as 65 percent of
medium sized agencies also cited large
budget cuts and 90 percent of large
sized agencies indicated having made
significant budget cuts. This suggests
that as an agency increases in size it
becomes more susceptible to budget
cuts. One chief of police reported, “The
needs of law enforcement continue
to increase, especially during tough
economic times and by decreasing
funding we are not able to be proactive,
only reactive.” Budget cuts hinder the
ability of law enforcement agencies to
continue moving forward and are therefore more
likely to remain stagnant at best. Instead of increasing
funding or at least maintaining funding as many
agencies were accustomed to, budgets are being
reduced which in turn forces departments to cut
services and eventually personnel.
Changes in Agency Size
Of the 40 police and sheriffs’ officers interviewed
29 (73 percent) anticipated that their agency would
remain the same size, seven (18 percent) expected
downsizing, while four (20 percent) anticipated
growth. The survey did not present any discrepancies
between agency sizes; however, police departments
and sheriffs’ offices offered some subtle, yet
noteworthy differences. Of the 20 police departments,
17 (85 percent) expect to remain the same and three
(15 percent) anticipate downsizing. Similarly, of
the 20 sheriffs’ offices, 12 (60 percent) expected
to remain the same, three (15 percent) anticipated
downsizing and four (20 percent) were expected
to grow. Those sheriffs’ offices anticipating growth
attributed it to either maintaining the jail or to an
increase in grant funding. One police chief stated,
“We are going to have to try and do the same job but
with less operating money.” Several sheriffs’ and
police officers echoed this claim; many agencies are
looking to provide the same if not improved services
with fewer funds. Another police chief expressed
his view, “During these tough economic times, if
anything, the demand for law enforcement services
goes up, yet our budgets are being cut and when cuts
are made, the ultimate loser is the citizen.”
25%
80%
58%
12%
18%
9%
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
80
Percent
Increase Decrease Same
Figure 2: Change in Agencies Budgets
North Carolina PERF
Figure 2: Percent Change in Agency Budgets, 2007 to 2008
Volume 27, No. 1 5
Economics and Crime: The Effects of the Economy on North Carolina’s Criminal Justice System
Another area seriously impacted by the economy is
personnel. Of the 40 police departments and sheriffs’
offices interviewed, three (8 percent) somewhat
agreed and six strongly agreed to having made
significant personnel cuts. This is a considerable
portion of agencies claiming to have made staffing
cuts since law enforcement personnel are rarely cut.
These personnel cuts indicate the infiltration of the
current economic downturn into North Carolina’s
law enforcement units. A closer examination of
survey results reveal that only one out of 10 (10
percent) respondents from small sized agencies
either somewhat or strongly agreed to having made
significant personnel cuts, while seven respondents
had not made personnel cuts.
This data could be explained because a loss of one
individual on a smaller sized staff would have a
greater impact than the loss of a few officers on a
large staff. One police officer stated, “Unfortunately,
we had to let one of our officers go this past year
and that lone loss has really stretched our duties
and has been very demanding for us here, because
being such a small agency, he was a large portion
of our manpower.” Generally, however, it appears
that smaller sized agencies are the least likely to cut
personnel, but when they have to do so, it is a much
more significant loss to absorb. Overall, it appears
agencies are doing their best to hold all their current
positions. Although, one officer stated, “If things keep
getting worse with the economy, we will probably be
forced to begin letting some personnel go.”
Overtime Spending Reduced
With the significant budget cuts overtime spending
is beginning to be cut back. The results provided
conclusive evidence that overtime is being reduced;
73 percent of the respondents either somewhat or
strongly agreed to have seen such reductions. Of the
remaining respondents, 18 percent were neutral and
10 percent either somewhat disagreed or strongly
disagreed that their respective agencies have reduced
overtime. These figures suggest that overtime
spending has continued to be reduced, as indicated
in an earlier nationwide PERF study in 2008. That
survey found that 61 percent of the surveyed agencies
were cutting back on overtime (Fischer, 2009). These
figures imply that overall North Carolina agencies
have had to decrease overtime spending at a slightly
higher rate than the national average (Figure 3).
Survey results also indicate that sheriffs’ offices
have reduced overtime slightly more than police
departments. Eighty percent of the sheriffs’ offices
responding agreed that a reduction is occurring, while
only 5 percent disagreed. The rest of the sample
was neutral on the issue. On the other hand, 65
percent of police respondents agreed that overtime
was being reduced while 15 percent disagreed with
the statement. These results suggest that a significant
number of agencies, regardless of type, have had to
reduce overtime spending.
Small sized police departments appear to be the
least susceptible to overtime reductions. Of the
five respondents within this group, three answered
neutral and two respondents agreed to having
reduced overtime which suggests that smaller
police departments most likely do not take on that
much overtime to begin with, since several of these
respondents also indicated they try not to use overtime
at all. In the sample of the large sized agencies, eight
out of nine (89 percent) respondents strongly agreed
to having to reduce overtime while one (11 percent)
respondent somewhat disagreed.
Jail Populations
Jails have also been significantly impacted by the
struggling economy. Of the 20 sheriffs’ offices
interviewed, 11 (55 percent) either somewhat or
73%
61%
28%
39%
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
80
Percent
Decrease, Same, Neutral Increase
Figure 3: Changes in Overtime Spending
North Carolina Nationwide
Figure 3: Percent Change in Overtime Spending,
2007 to 2008
6 SystemStats
Economics and Crime: The Effects of the Economy on North Carolina’s Criminal Justice System
strongly agreed to have observed what they consider
a substantial increase in the jail population, while
five (25 percent) remained neutral and four (20
percent) respondents somewhat disagreed that they
had seen an increase in the jail population. Of the
five small sized sheriffs’ offices four (80 percent) of
them strongly agreed and one (20 percent) somewhat
agreed to having seen a substantial increase in the
jail population.
Courtroom Efficiency
Courts are another sector that has been impacted by
the economy. Although the responses given were
not entirely consistent, there were numerous officers
citing various problems. The survey yielded mixed
results about whether courtrooms have regressed in
their efficiency due to the economic slowdown. Some
agencies noted fairly significant inefficiencies, as
indicated by 25 percent of the respondents strongly
disagreeing that their courtroom had not seen any
setbacks, while 15 percent somewhat disagreed.
Some officers went as far as to question whether
their courtrooms could get any worse. On the other
hand, other respondents did not feel their courtrooms
had become less efficient. In fact, 38 percent of
respondents either somewhat or strongly agreed
that their courtroom had not suffered in terms of
efficiency.
Responses varied greatly when asked about the main
effects the economy has had in the courtroom. Of
the 40 respondents, 12 (30 percent) of the officers
cited that the economy had not impacted their court
systems, 13 (33 percent) reported case overload, eight
(20 percent) noticed increases in property crimes and
three (8 percent) claimed judges were more lenient
and less likely to charge or sentence offenders. (See
Figure 4.)
Perceived District Safety
Safety in most districts has remained consistent for
the most part. Survey results indicate that 68 percent
of the sheriff and police respondents either somewhat
agreed or strongly agreed that their district is at least
as safe as or safer than it was a year ago.
Violent Crime Rate
The results about whether an agency’s district had
the same violent crime rate over the past year were
evenly split. Forty percent either somewhat or
strongly disagreed while 53 percent somewhat or
strongly agreed that there had been no change in the
violent crime rate. This data was consistently upheld
regardless of agency size or type. The reason for this
discrepancy may be that the violent crime rate does
not follow a trend and is not indicative of a rise or fall
in the economy. The findings here support the claims
set forth by Levitt and Dubner in Freakonomics
(2006). In their book they cited that during the
1990s unemployment fell by two percentage points,
but violent crime plummeted about 40 percent. In
comparison, in the 1960s, the economy boomed and
so did violent crime. The survey results support the
findings of Levitt and Dubner (2006) suggesting
Court Room Effects
Sheriffs’ Offices
Percent of Times Cited
Police Departments
Percent of Times Cited
Backlog 50 15
Increase Property Crime 20 20
Less likely to sentence 0 15
None 15 45
Figure 4: Effects of the Economy on the Court System
Volume 27, No. 1 7
Economics and Crime: The Effects of the Economy on North Carolina’s Criminal Justice System
that the violent crime rate does not
depend on or vary with changes in
the economy.
Non-violent Crime Rate
The combined survey results for
the police departments and sheriffs’
offices indicate a wide range of
responses across all five possible
answer choices; however, there were
significant differences by agency
type and agency size. Respondents
from the sheriffs’ offices significantly
disagreed that their non-violent crime
rate had remained the same. Seventy
percent of the respondents either
somewhat or strongly disagreed
and only 10 percent of respondents
somewhat agreed and the rest
remained neutral. The opposite is true
for police departments. They agreed
significantly in noting a change in the non-violent
crime rate. Survey results indicate that 65 percent
of police departments responding either somewhat
or strongly agreed that non-violent crime rates
had changed in their jurisdiction, while 30 percent
disagreed and one (5 percent) respondent remained
neutral about any change. In regards to agency size,
the smaller agencies were the subgroup that most
disagreed with not seeing a change in the non-violent
crime rate. Seventy percent of their respondents
disagreed while the rest somewhat agreed, indicating
they had not seen a change in the non-violent crime
rate. These figures are supported by a 100 percent
disagreement by small sized sheriffs’ offices. All of
the officers reporting indicated that the non-violent
crime rate had increased in their jurisdiction.
Civilian Staff
In order to help compensate for a reduction in funding,
one method some agencies have implemented is
increased reliance on less costly civilian staff. At
initial glance, there does not appear to be an overall
trend that would determine if agencies are making
use of hiring less costly civilian staff to help their
budget. Overall, 21 (53 percent) of the agencies
stated they have not increased the use of civilian staff,
while six (15 percent) respondents were neutral and
13 (33 percent) agencies claimed to have increased
their civilian staff. However, 75 percent of the police
department’s have not increased civilian staff, while
15 percent did increase and the remaining 10 percent
were neutral. Fifty percent of the sheriffs’ offices
responding stated they have increased the use of
civilians, 30 percent did not and 20 percent were
neutral. (See Figure 5.)
In addition to examining how the economy has
affected criminal justice departments and what effects
have arisen due to those changes, the study also
inquired about what to typically expect during these
economic downturns and more specifically, what
effects North Carolina’s citizens will experience.
Economically Driven Crimes
Respondents were asked about the following
offenses: burglary, theft, robbery, crimes involving
scrap and/or precious metals, drug-related crimes,
gasoline theft, crimes involving firearms, property
crimes, thefts involving cars, larceny and all other
crimes. The following results are demonstrative in
explaining what types of crimes can be expected
when economic conditions deteriorate. Respondents
cited that burglary (88 percent), theft (93 percent)
and larceny (90 percent) were driven by difficult
economic conditions. Robbery was also indicated
by 80 percent of respondents as associated with
declining economic conditions. These results suggest
Figure 5: Percent Change in the Use of Civilian Staff by Agencies,
2007 to 2008
15%
50%
85%
50%
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
80
90
Percent
Increase Decrease /Neutral/Same
Police Departments Sheriff's Officers
8 SystemStats
Economics and Crime: The Effects of the Economy on North Carolina’s Criminal Justice System
that many people are driven into methods of theft
to compensate for their economic shortfalls. This
echoes Becker’s (1968) work which suggests that,
as the economy spirals downward, individuals are
more likely to commit income producing criminal
violations as the benefits of perpetration outweigh or
surpass the associated costs of apprehension.
Gasoline theft and property crimes in general were
each cited by 30 out of 40 (75 percent) respondents
as being driven by tough economic times. One
officer commented on the issue of gasoline theft,
“Gasoline theft usually flares up when people really
start getting hit hard in their pockets and many people
that normally would otherwise pay for their gas are
finding ways to cut corners and save money wherever
possible”.
Drug related crimes, car theft and crimes with firearms
were the crimes sheriffs’ offices and police officers
least attributed to be driven by difficult economic
times. Of the 40 responding agencies, 23 (58 percent)
cited drug related crimes to be economically related,
while 10 (25 percent) agencies disagreed and seven
(18 percent) claimed a possible relation. The survey
yielded 48 percent of respondents citing a relation for
car theft, while 25 percent disagreed and 28 percent
claimed there to be a possible relationship. Crimes
with firearms were least attributed to being driven
by a declining economy, as only 40 percent of the
agencies agreed there to be a correlation, 28 percent
disagreed and 33 percent cited a possible relation.
Additionally, crimes involving scrap and/or precious
metals were cited by 73 percent of the 40 respondents
as being driven by tough economic conditions, while
20 percent disagreed with this claim and 8 percent of
the respondents were neutral.
Respondents were asked if there were any other
crimes they considered to be driven by difficult
economic conditions that had been observed in their
jurisdiction. The results were fairly split. Twenty-one
(53 percent) respondents noted that some factors were
influenced by the economy, while 19 (48 percent)
respondents did not cite observing any such instances.
The breakdown of the 21 respondents consisted of
10 (48 percent) instances of fraud, nine (43 percent)
noting an increase in domestic violence, and two (10
percent) observed other factors, including an increase
in shoplifting and an increase in murders.
Budgetary Allocations by Unit
The previous section detailed the types of crimes
sheriffs’ and police officers typically associate
with difficult economic conditions. The following
analysis details what specific units within a sheriffs’
office or police department are least and most likely
Figure 6: Agency Units Expected to Receive the Smallest Percent of Funding, 2007 to 2008
11
9
7
5
4
3
1 0
2
4
6
8
10
12
Number of Times Cited
Investigation Equal
Disbursement
Reduction
Patrol Equipment/
Supplies
Personnel Other Jail
Agency Unit
Figure 12: Agency Unit Expected to Receive Smallest Percent of Requested Funds
Volume 27, No. 1 9
Economics and Crime: The Effects of the Economy on North Carolina’s Criminal Justice System
to receive cuts. Overall, between the sheriffs’
offices and police departments the units that should
expect to receive the smallest portion of requested
funds are the investigative units, which tallied 11
out of the 40 (28 percent) responses, and the next
would be 23 percent citing an equal disbursement
reduction, which implies that all units take on the
same percentage cut. The remaining responses were
distributed as follows: seven (18 percent) for patrol,
five (13 percent) for equipment and supplies, four
(10 percent) towards administrative positions and
three (8 percent) for other and one (3 percent) for jail.
Responses included in the other category included the
civil division, traffic division and the department’s
travel budget (Figure 6).
Anticipated cuts did not vary by agency size, but
there were some notable trends between the police
departments and sheriffs’ offices. For example,
of the responding police departments, seven (35
percent) indicated investigations as likely to receive
the smallest percent of requested funds and six (30
percent) cited equal disbursement reduction. No other
category was chosen more than three times as being
likely to receive the smallest percent of requested
funds. On the other hand, the sheriffs’ offices results
for which units would receive the smallest percent
of requested funds were more dispersed, with patrol
and investigation each chosen four times (20 percent
for each). Personnel, equal disbursement reduction,
and other were each chosen three times (15 percent
for each), equipment and supplies were chosen twice
(10 percent) and jail once (5 percent). From these
responses it can be inferred that the investigative
departments will likely absorb a significant impact
of the expected budget cut.
The following sections will discuss structural changes
and innovative policing strategies that are being
used or agencies anticipate using to compensate for
funding reductions.
Infrastructure Changes
In response to what structural changes agencies
are considering or implementing, 21 out of 40 (53
percent) reported no changes at the current time, while
10 out of 40 (25 percent) reported reorganization of
positions. This often entailed methods like shifting
duties around or eliminating high ranking positions
to ‘flatten out’ the department. The remaining
responses included four (10 percent) implementing
changes in personnel and salaries, two (5 percent)
for reducing programs, and one (3 percent) for each
of the following: equipment cuts, training reduction
and other. Changes with personnel and salaries can
encompass a variety of methods including pay cuts,
eliminating school resource officers or freezing
positions. The response given for the ‘Other’
category described an increase in telephone reporting,
which allows an agency to save both time and fuel,
potentially at the expense of losing some legitimacy
with citizens reporting crimes because they may
not feel their issue is being taken as seriously. (See
Figure 7 above.)
The results of the survey indicate that police
departments are more likely to not institute any
structural changes and less likely to reorganize
positions. Of the 20 police respondents surveyed 65
percent cited no changes, 15 percent reported position
reorganization, 10 percent indicated personnel and
salary changes and 5 percent for program reductions.
Structural Change
Number of Times
Cited
None 21
Position Reorganization 10
Personnel/Salaries 4
Program Reductions 2
Equipment Cuts 1
Training Reduction 1
Other 1
Figure 7: Agencies Expected to Make Structural
Changes, 2007 to 2008
10 SystemStats
Economics and Crime: The Effects of the Economy on North Carolina’s Criminal Justice System
The remaining 5 percent indicated other changes
would be made without specifying what those
changes would be. On the other hand, eight out of 20
(40 percent) sheriffs’ offices cited no changes, while
seven (35 percent) indicated position reorganization.
The remaining two (5 percent) sheriffs’ offices cited
personnel and salaries. This data suggest that sheriffs’
offices are more likely to reorganize positions within
their department and police departments are less
likely to have not made any sort of structural change.
However, one officer reported, “If the economy
continues to go the way it is going, we will surely
have to look at making some changes around here.”
The high percentage of officers reporting no changes
at the time of the survey suggests that departments
have an established infrastructure and major changes
in an agency’s operations would likely be unfeasible
and possibly counterproductive. As a result, many
agencies simply try to do more with less.
Policing Strategies
The survey results obtained regarding what, if any,
innovative policing strategies agencies have taken on
are very consistent in proportion regardless of agency
size or type. Of the 40 respondents interviewed,
14 (35 percent) reported not currently using or not
yet having anticipated using any innovative police
strategies to cope with the probable reduction in
funding. Of those 14, there were seven police and
seven sheriffs’ offices each citing no changes as of
yet.
Other innovative policing strategies noted from
police departments and sheriffs’ offices included five
(13 percent) citing more efforts towards obtaining
grants and funding, five reporting technology uses,
and five claiming using atypical patrol methods.
Furthermore, four (10 percent) respondents cited
relying more heavily on community help and
involvement, while seven (18 percent) officers cited
other innovative strategies. These other strategies
included more in service training; Values, Influence
and Peers programs; eliminating work duplication,
instituting civil citation programs and hiring part-time
help. Other atypical patrol strategies included
methods such as policing on foot or bicycle or by
doubling the number of officers per car. An officer of
an agency utilizing technology stated, “Since we are
stretched so thin as a workforce, we have implanted
cameras in high crime areas to better monitor those
areas.” Overall, when the budget begins to tighten
agencies look at different ways to save or generate
money or seek alternative methods to help make
their services more efficient by, essentially, doing
more with less.
Summary
The enduring effects of the economic downturn will
impact law enforcement agencies statewide. The
survey shows sheriffs’ offices and police departments
are experiencing the effects of the recession through
both crimes committed and budgetary restraints.
The constant theme stated by the agencies surveyed
remains how to do more with less as these agencies
grapple with maintaining a level of service to the
public with a concurrent decreased level of funding.
As reported earlier by one police chief, “. . . the
demand for law enforcement services goes up, yet
our budgets are being cut and when cuts are made,
the ultimate loser is the citizen.”
Appendix A: Sampling Method
A stratified sampling method derived from agency
size was used to select both the sheriffs’ offices and
the police departments to be surveyed. Campus,
company and other special police forces were
excluded from the survey. All remaining agencies
were segmented into three groups: an upper quartile,
a middle 50 percent and a lower quartile. The top
25 percent group was defined as large agencies, the
middle 50 percent as medium sized, and the smallest
25 percent was categorized as small agencies.
There are 100 counties in North Carolina; therefore,
the top quartile consisted of 25 sheriffs’ offices, the
middle segment included 50 counties and the lower
quartile contained 25 agencies to randomly choose
Volume 27, No. 1 11
Economics and Crime: The Effects of the Economy on North Carolina’s Criminal Justice System
SYSTEM STAT S
A Publication of the
Governor’s Crime Commission
Department of Crime Control and Public Safety
(919) 733-4564
http://www.ncgccd.org
Beverly Eaves Perdue Reuben F. Young Scott Thomas
Governor Secretary Chair, Governor’s Crime Commission
Gwendolyn W. Burrell Douglas Yearwood
Executive Director Director, Statistical Analysis Center
Dr. Jim Klopovic Richard Hayes Justin Davis
Criminal Justice Planner Senior Research Analyst Social/Clinical Research Specialist
Karen Jayson Yu Li Hsu Gerald Koinis
Social/Clinical Research Specialist Research Assistant Intern
University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill
References
Becker, G. (1968). Crime and punishment: An economic approach. Journal of Political Economy, 76 (2), p. 169-
217.
Fischer, C. (2009). [Survey on the impact of the economic recession on crime and on police budgets]. Unpublished
raw data.
Levitt, S. D., & Dubner, S. J. (2006). Freakonomics. New York, NY: HarperCollins Publishers.
Police Executive Research Forum. (2009). Retrieved July 10, 2009, from Police Executive Research Forum, Washington,
DC. Web site: http://www.policeforum.org/.
from. The sheriffs’ offices’ large group was defined
as agencies with 77 or more total sworn officers,
the middle group has agencies ranging from 76 to
24 sworn officers and the lower quartile contained
agencies with 23 or fewer officers. There are 90
total police departments in the top quartile, 180 in
the middle 50 percent, and 90 agencies in the lowest
quartile. The top quartile of agencies was defined as
those with greater than 20 sworn officers, the middle
50 percent consisted of four to 20 sworn officers and
the lowest quartile group contained mainly agencies
with one to four sworn officers.
Five agencies from the top quartile, 10 from the
middle 50 percent, and five agencies from the lower
quartile were selected to be interviewed for both
sheriffs’ and police agencies. Thus the combined total
number for both agency types was 10 small agencies,
20 medium and 10 large agencies. This distribution
allows for a proportionate representation based on
agency size. The agencies selected for inclusion in
the study were chosen randomly.
Appendix B: Participating Agencies
Sheriffs’ Offices Police Departments
Alamance County Ayden
Alexander County Boone
Ashe County Chapel Hill
Avery County Concord
Brunswick County Fremont
Buncombe County Kings Mountain
Cherokee County Marion
Forsyth County Nags Head
Gaston County Newland
Granville County Oriental
Haywood County Pine Level
Mecklenburg County Pinehurst
Montgomery County Plymouth
Person County Rose Hill
Polk County Rowland
Richmond County Siler City
Rutherford County Tabor City
Sampson County Wallace
Stokes County Weldon
Surry County Zebulon
North Carolina Governor’s Crime Commission
1201 Front Street, Suite 200
Raleigh, North Carolina 27609
The printing of this document was supported under grant number 2005-DJ-BX-0402, as awarded by the Bureau of Justice Assistance, Office of Justice Programs, U.S. Department
of Justice. The opinions and findings presented in this publication are those of the author and do not necessarily reflect the views of the U. S. Department of Justice. This document
was printed at a cost of $ 1,534.30 or $ 1.02 per copy for 1,500 copies. January 2010
The Governor’s Crime Commission was established in 1977 by the North Carolina General Assembly under G.S. 143B-479. Its primary duty is “to be the chief advisory body to the Governor and the Secretary
of the Department of Crime Control and Public Safety for the development and implementation of criminal justice policy.” The Crime Commission is always open to comments and suggestions from the public
as well as criminal justice officials. Please contact us and let us know your thoughts and feelings on the information contained in this publication or on any other criminal justice issue of concern to you.
Beverly Eaves Perdue
Governor
Scott E. Thomas, Chair
Governor’s Crime Commission
Secretary Reuben F. Young
Department of Crime Control & Public Safety
Dr. June Atkinson, Superintendent
Department of Public Instruction
Robin Baker
N.C. Victim Assistance Network
Judge Joseph M. Buckner
Chief District Court Judge
Sheriff Steve W. Bunn
Bladen County Sheriff’s Office
Secretary Lanier M. Cansler
Dept. of Health & Human Services
Steven Cogburn
Clerk of Superior Court, Buncombe County
Judge J. C. Cole
Superior Court Judge
Attorney General Roy Cooper
Department of Justice
Chief Harry Dolan
Raleigh Police Department
Mayor James K. Festerman
City of Reidsville
Judge Carl Fox
Superior Court Judge
Dr. Catherine Mitchell-Fuentes
UNC Charlotte
Representative R. Phillip Haire
N.C. House of Representatives
Secretary Linda Wheeler Hayes
Dept. of Juvenile Justice & Delinquency Prevention
Jean R. Irvin
Private Juvenile Justice Program
Dr. Robin Jenkins, Deputy Secretary
Dept. of Juvenile Justice & Delinquency Prevention
David E. Jones, Deputy Secretary
Dept. of Juvenile Justice & Delinquency Prevention
Senator Edward “Ed” Jones
North Carolina State Senate
Secretary Alvin W. Keller, Jr.
Department of Correction
Sheriff James L. Knight
Edgecombe County Sheriff’s Office
Robert Lewis, Director
Division of Prisons, DOC
Rita Anita Linger
NC Coalition Against Domestic Violence
Jerry G. Monette
Craven County Sheriff’s Office
Chief Rodney Monroe
Charlotte-Mecklenburg Police Department
Timothy Moose, Director
Division of Community Corrections, DOC
Michael Page, Chair
Durham County Board of Commissioners
Chief Justice Sarah E. Parker
North Carolina Supreme Court
Robin Pendergraft, Director
State Bureau of Investigation
James W. Pierce, Jr.
Kids Making It
Sandra Lynn Reid
Elon University
Jennifer Roberts, Chair
Mecklenburg County Board of Commissioners
Sharon Sadler
Hyde County Clerk of Superior Court
Captain J. Wayne Sears
Rocky Mount Police Department
Richard L. Shaffer
27B Prosecutorial District
Detective Crystal Lynn Sharpe
Graham Police Department
Judge John W. Smith, Director
Administrative Office of the Courts
Senator John J. Snow
North Carolina State Senate
Kerstin Walker Sutton
Attorney Representative Michael H. Wray
N.C. House of Representatives
Commission Members as of January 2009